U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

87–700 PDF 2014

A REVIEW OF RECENT UNITED STATES ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS CHIEF’S REPORTS AND 

POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORTS 

(113–68) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 29, 2014 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

BOB GIBBS, Ohio, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas, 

Vice Chair 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Major General John Peabody, Deputy Commanding General for Civil and 

Emergency Operations, United States Army Corps of Engineers; accompanied by Theodore A. ‘‘Tab’’ Brown, P.E., Chief, Planning and Policy 

Division, United States Army Corps of Engineers ............................................ 6 

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY WITNESS 

Major General John Peabody .................................................................................. 31 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, request to submit letter from Eric Garcetti, mayor of Los Angeles, California, April 29, 2014 ............................................................................. 14 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 87700.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 87700.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 87700.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 87700.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 87700.005
(1) 

A REVIEW OF RECENT UNITED STATES ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS CHIEF’S REPORTS 

AND POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORTS 

TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m. in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Gibbs (Chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. GIBBS. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 

the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, will come 

to order. Welcome. 

First, I want to do a little bit of housekeeping here. I ask unanimous consent to allow Congressman Farenthold to participate in 

today’s committee hearing. 

[No response.] 

Mr. GIBBS. With no objection, so ordered. Also, I ask unanimous 

consent that the hearing record be kept open for 30 days after this 

hearing in order to accept other submissions of written testimony 

for the hearing record. 

[No response.] 

Mr. GIBBS. No objection? Without objection, so ordered. 

Today we are here to review the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Chief’s Reports and Post-Authorization Change Reports. And we 

have General Peabody as our guest. And I will yield to myself, 

first, our opening statement. 

First, welcome again, and we are holding this hearing, the 

Chief’s Report, and the process the Corps undertakes to develop 

these water resources development projects, and some of the steps 

the Corps is carrying out internally to accelerate the process. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is the Federal Government’s 

largest water resources development and management agency. The 

Corps began its water resources program in the 1800s when Congress for the first time appropriated money for improving river 

navigation. Today, the Corps of Engineers constructs projects for 

the purpose of navigation, flood control, beach erosion control and 

shoreline protection, hydroelectric power, recreation, water supply, 

environmental protection, restoration and enhancement, and fish 

and wildlife mitigation. 

2 

The Corps of Engineers planning process considers economic development and environmental needs as it addresses water resources challenges. The planning process addresses the Nation’s 

water resources needs in a system context, and explores a full 

range of alternatives in developing solutions that meet both national and local needs. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is subject to all Federal statutes, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the 

Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, 

the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and all previous Water Resource Development Acts, Flood Control Acts, and Rivers and Harbors Acts. These laws and associated regulations and guidance provide the legal basis for the Corps of Engineers planning process. 

For instance, when carrying out a feasibility study, the National 

Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, requires the Corps of Engineers 

to include an identification of significant environmental resources 

likely to be impacted by the proposed project, an assessment of the 

impacts, a full disclosure of likely impacts, and a consideration of 

a full range of alternatives, including a no-action alternative and 

an action-by-other alternatives. 

NEPA also requires a 30-day public review of any draft document 

and a 30-day public review of any final document produced by the 

Corps of Engineers. 

Additionally, when carrying out a feasibility study, the Clean 

Water Act requires an evaluation of the potential impacts of a proposed project or action, and requires a letter from a State agency 

ensuring the proposed project or action complies with State water 

quality standards. 

The Army Corps of Engineers also has to formulate alternative 

plans to ensure all reasonable alternatives are evaluated, including 

plans that maximize net national economic development benefits 

and other plans that incorporate other Federal, State, and local 

concerns. Mitigation of adverse impacts to be included in each of 

the alternative plans to review—are reviewed in the study. The 

Corps of Engineers also is responsible for identifying areas of risk 

and uncertainty in the study, so decisions can be made with some 

degree of reliability on the estimated costs and benefits of the alternative plan. 

These planning efforts do not take place in a back room somewhere. There are public meetings as well as interagency meetings 

involving local, State, and other Federal agencies. Typically, a plan 

recommended by the Corps of Engineers is a plan with the greatest 

net economic benefit, and consistent with protection of the Nation’s 

environment. However, the Corps does not have the discretion to 

recommend another alternative—does have, I should put it, does 

have the discretion to recommend another alternative if there are 

overriding reasons for recommending another plan, based on other 

Federal, State, or local concerns. 

By now, many of us have seen the actual size of typical studies 

carried out by the Corps of Engineers. While these are complex 

projects that need to be reviewed by the public and other State and 

Federal agencies, the level of analysis required by other laws and 

regulations are crippling the project delivery process. We are litVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:12 Dec 15, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\WR\4-29-1~1\87700.TXT JEAN
3 

erally studying infrastructure projects to death, but this is not solely the fault of the Corps of Engineers. 

Congress needs to change the way the Corps of Engineers carries 

out its business. It is no longer acceptable that these studies take 

dozens of years to complete. Ultimately, the Federal taxpayer is on 

the hook for these studies and for the length of time it takes to 

carry them out, delaying the benefits these projects are ultimately 

supposedly to provide. 

As we have constructed a policy-heavy Water Resources Development Act, WRDA, both the House and Senate conferees are focused 

on accelerating the study and project delivery process, as well as 

better prioritizing these worthwhile investments that the American 

public has relied on in the past for decades. And I am interested 

to have—to hear General Peabody’s testimony on what—their process they are doing to streamline and expedite the process to get 

these projects going. Because, as we all know, time is money. And 

we are falling behind in our global competitiveness by not having 

our infrastructure where it needs to be. 

So at this time I yield to my ranking member, Mr. Bishop from 

New York, for any comments he may have. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I thank 

you and committee Chairman Shuster for holding this hearing on 

outstanding Chief’s Reports and 902 project budget increase. This 

hearing is a critical step towards closure and completion of the 

Conference Report and final bill language for the long-awaited 

Water Resources Reform and Development Act. This hearing provides Congress the ability to perform one of our most important 

roles: oversight and review of the Army Corps of Engineers programs, and authorization of specific projects. 

Before I begin my statement, I would like to welcome General 

Peabody here to this morning’s hearing. Thank you, sir, for your 

service and attention to the water engineering needs of our country. And, most importantly, for assisting the northeast coastal 

States as we recover from Hurricane Sandy. Thank you very much, 

sir. 

With the passage of H.R. 3080, the Water Resources Reform Act, 

in October of last year, we authorized 23 Chief’s Reports that had 

been submitted to Congress by the Corps of Engineers. These 

Chief’s Reports had been completed after the last WRDA bill was 

passed in 2007. Since the passage of WRRDA in October 2013, 11 

new Chief’s Reports have been transmitted to our committee. These 

11 Chief’s Reports are the focus of this hearing. 

In addition to these Chief’s Reports, we are also evaluating requests from the Corps to authorize an increase in cost of eight 

other projects. Collectively, this group of projects should be included in the WRRDA 2014 Conference Report, and hopefully subject to approval in both the House and the Senate within the next 

few weeks. 

Our responsibility in this subcommittee, and as Members of Congress, is to represent the public in the review and direction of what 

the Army Corps of Engineers accomplishes. If we fail to execute 

proper oversight, two things happen. One, the administration ends 

up prioritizing projects and making decisions based on their set of 

metrics. Those metrics may or may not be the same ones that are 

4 

important to Members of Congress. Two, the process of authorizing 

and moving projects from design to planning to construction becomes more time-consuming, complicated, and costly. 

By authorizing these 11 Chief’s Reports, along with those already 

captured in H.R. 3080, combined with Section 902 changes for a 

limited number of ongoing projects, we will support what this country needs most right now: the creation and retention of real jobs 

and wages that will help lift our economy. Real jobs for Americans 

means a stronger Nation. 

We too often take for granted our water infrastructure and inland water highways and harbors. It is easy to forget about the 

vital work the Army Corps of Engineers has done over the years 

to protect our communities, beaches, rivers, and coastlines. In the 

heat of debate it is also easy to lose sight of the importance that 

these projects have in employing millions of people across this 

great Nation. 

In my opinion, the process we have embraced with this WRRDA 

bill reflects what we have been set here to do: to legislate cooperatively, and collectively do what is right for the country. We may 

disagree over how the administration manages the Army Corps, 

and how the Corps then performs its job. What we can agree on 

is that, without a commitment to sustain, maintain, and continually develop our engineering and project capacity, we will be wasting the investment that those before us have made. 

So, once again, let us do our due diligence here today, authorize 

these projects and get WRRDA across the finish line. Thank you, 

and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GIBBS. At this time, the chairman of the full Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure, Chairman Bill Shuster from 

Pennsylvania. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman. Congress is preparing—or 

prepared I should say—to re-engage in the development of our 

water resources and our infrastructure, to carry out that role, to 

prioritize the projects and activities carried out by the Army Corps 

of Engineers. 

Historically, as I think many in this room know, water resource 

legislation has been enacted every 2 years to provide the oversight 

and the policy direction that the Corps of Engineers—and to authorize the need of the projects and improvements. But since such 

a measure has not been passed since 2007, Congress has been silent on needed reforms and has failed to take action to develop, 

maintain, and support our Nation’s vital water infrastructure 

needs. 

One of our top priorities is the development of our Water Resources Reform and Development Act, WRRDA, legislation in the 

House, and our work in the conference has been the importance of 

strengthening oversight, transparency, and accountability. 

Over the last year-and-a-half this sommittee has held numerous 

public educational forums, roundtables, and hearings on the Corps 

of Engineers program. This process included an oversight hearing 

on June 5, 2013, that provided Members the opportunity to review 

the Chief’s Reports submitted to Congress, and was an important 

part of the development of the House WRRDA bill that passed by 

5 

the slim margin of 417 to 3, and I am very proud to tout that number. 

Today’s hearing continues our strong oversight of the Corps of 

Engineers, and will provide Members the opportunity to review the 

11 Chief’s Reports and 8 Post-Authorization Change Reports submitted to Congress since June 5, 2013. This oversight hearing will 

be extremely valuable to our work in conference, which we are 

hopeful is very near to resolution. And once we finish this WRRDA 

bill, it is critical to get WRDAs back on a 2-year cycle to ensure 

Congress has a fundamental role in the development of Corps of 

Engineers projects and the oversight of the agency. And, as I have 

said many times, as soon as the President signs this WRRDA bill, 

we are going to start working on the next WRRDA bill for the next 

Congress. 

I want to thank Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member Rahall and 

Bishop for their hard work in this matter, and happy to say that 

417 number reflects much bipartisan support for that bill. So I 

can’t thank them enough for their good work. 

And I want to thank General Peabody for your service to the Nation. If it was an easy job, running the Corps, or being at the top 

of the Corps, we wouldn’t have given it to the Army, because we 

know you guys can get the job done. And with that, I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. I recognize the ranking member of the 

T&I Committee, Mr. Rahall from West Virginia. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do want to thank 

you, Chairman Shuster, subcommittee Ranking Member Tim 

Bishop, for holding this hearing on the outstanding Chief’s Reports 

and project budget increases for the Water Resources Development 

Act Bill of 2014. 

Throughout the extensive evolution of WRRDA over the last 

year, Chairman Shuster and I have worked in a bipartisan, transparent, and collaborative manner to ensure that proper due diligence and oversight is performed by the committee. I believe that 

the proof of what we can do when we work together is the WRRDA 

bill that will soon come out of conference. 

This WRRDA bill will direct the reform Corps of Engineers 

project process within the reality of refined budgets and congressional expectations. It is our intent over the next 2 weeks to complete the Conference Report on the combined and revised House 

and Senate WRRDA bills, bring the bill back to the House for approval, and then to get it down to the White House to be signed 

into law. 

Our combined commitment to working together will bring jobs to 

America and improvements to the way the Nation manages water 

resources and infrastructure. The hearing this morning is part of 

the commitment we made last year when we said that there will 

be no projects or programs in WRRDA that have not undergone 

congressional review and oversight. That is our responsibility, and 

one we hold as critical to maintaining our role of oversight and authorization. 

So, again, I want to thank you, Chairman Shuster and Chairman 

Gibbs, and Ranking Member Bishop, for the cooperative manner in 

which we have worked together on this bill. And I do welcome 

Major General Peabody and thank him as well for his service to the 

6 

country, and also his staff, who worked to support the overall program of the Corps of Engineers. Thank you both for being here 

today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes, thank you. Today we have one witness, Major 

General John Peabody. He is the Deputy Commanding General of 

the Civil and Emergency Operations of the United States Corps of 

Engineers. Accompanying him is Mr. Theodore Brown. He is the 

Chief, Planning and Policy Division, of the United States Army 

Corps of Engineers. 

Welcome, gentlemen. And, General Peabody, the floor is yours. 

TESTIMONY OF MAJOR GENERAL JOHN PEABODY, DEPUTY 

COMMANDING GENERAL FOR CIVIL AND EMERGENCY OPERATIONS, UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; ACCOMPANIED BY THEODORE A. ‘‘TAB’’ BROWN, P.E., CHIEF, 

PLANNING AND POLICY DIVISION, UNITED STATES ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

General PEABODY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Bishop, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Rahall, distinguished 

members of the subcommittee. I am honored to testify on the Corps 

of Engineers project planning process, recent Chief’s Reports, and 

Post-Authorization Change Reports. Joining me is Mr. Theodore 

‘‘Tab’’ Brown, the Corps Chief of Planning and Policy. 

My full testimony includes descriptions of the six Chief’s Reports 

that have completed executive branch review, eight potential 

projects that have Chief’s Reports still under administration review, and eight projects with Post-Authorization Change Reports. 

My written testimony also includes a more indepth discussion of 

Civil Works Transformation, and a discussion of the life cycle of the 

Corps’ Civil Works project, including the planning phase, which begins with a reconnaissance study and, if warranted, proceeds to a 

feasibility study that identifies a viable non-Federal sponsor, and 

makes an investment decision recommendation to Congress and 

the administration in the form of a Chief’s Report. 

For the last several years, the Corps has been developing a strategy to address the Nation’s current and future water resource 

needs, including the reliable performance of our infrastructure in 

an era of increasing physical pressures, shifting demographics, 

changing social values, and climate variability. This evolving strategy, which we have dubbed ‘‘Civil Works Transformation,’’ is currently focused on four main areas: budget development transformation, infrastructure strategy, methods of delivery, and planning modernization. 

I am firmly committed to this effort to improve the efficiency and 

effectiveness of our Civil Works program, in collaboration with 

sponsors, resource agencies, and national policymakers. This year 

we embarked on an evaluation of this strategy with the intent of 

capitalizing on early lessons to make some adjustments, but I remain confident that the Civil Works Transformation is the right 

general framework for the Corps. 

Today we have made good progress. We are beginning to synchronize Corps investments with those made by other Federal, 

State, local, and nongovernmental organizations. We are using 

7 

risk-informed decisionmaking to improve the reliability and resiliency of our infrastructure portfolio. We have sharpened our technical competence and improved organizational efficiency by developing technical centers of expertise. We have reduced the time to 

deliver feasibility studies, with investment recommendations supported by high-quality analysis. And, lastly, we continue improving 

our enterprise metrics and business processes focused on delivering 

on our commitments, enhancing communications, and driving cultural change. 

As one of the key elements of Civil Works Transformation, planning modernization is focused on improving the delivery of highquality studies in order to make water resource investment recommendations. All studies must comply with key principles, including clearly defined objectives, well understood and risk-informed 

programming, integrated project management business processes, 

solid quality control, and consistent and policy-compliant communications. 

Four tenants guide these planning modernization efforts: people, 

projects, program, and process. First, people. An effective planning 

program must have well-trained, experienced people with the technical skills and collaborative spirit to work with stakeholders to address complex challenges by delivering innovative solutions. Investing in them is our most critical planning priority. 

Projects. Delivering a study outcome with a project investment 

recommendation is the whole purpose of the planning program. 

Since the passage of WRDA 2007, the Corps has completed 36 

Chief’s Reports, with an approximate estimated total cost of nearly 

$28 billion. In the 3 years prior to planning modernization, which 

began in January of 2011, we completed 11 of those reports, 6 of 

which were 10 years or older, for a total net investment of $6.6 billion. Since we began planning modernization, we have completed 

25 Chief’s Reports, 14 of which were 10 years or older, for a total 

net estimated cost of $21 billion. It is clear that we have already 

made great progress because we have completed 21⁄2 times the reports with greater complexity in less than the same amount of time 

since WRDA 2007 in the last 3 years. 

Process. The planning process is a deliberate, incremental decisionmaking approach that assesses the full range of reasonable alternatives. This process has received considerable attention with 

the now-infamous 3x3x3 rule, prompted in part by Section 233 of 

WRDA 2007. However, the key to our ability to actualize this goal 

lies in the SMART—standing for Specific, Measurable, Achievable, 

Risk-informed, and Timely—planning approach. 

And, lastly, program. This tenant focuses on coherent, total study 

program management. A key has been to focus resources only on 

those studies most likely to be completed. We have achieved this 

by defining active and inactive study categories, reducing the total 

portfolio from over 650 studies to an active portfolio that we are 

managing of 158. By placing over 490 studies in an inactive status, 

which could be activated at some future point, and terminating 19 

studies, we were able to harness our energies and deliver studies 

to reach a conclusive outcome. 

Wrapping up, I would like to finally add that certain provisions 

in the proposed WRRDA bills under consideration, especially elimiVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:12 Dec 15, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\WR\4-29-1~1\87700.TXT JEAN
8 

nation of reconnaissance studies, defined fixed lengths for feasibility studies, and project permitting constraints, could unduly constrain the Corps and our partner Federal agencies from exercising 

the same initiative that resulted in the successes we have seen in 

planning modernization. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to be here 

today, and I look forward to the committee’s questions. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, General. I will start off with some questions here. Of the 11 Chief’s Reports and the 9 Post-Authorization 

Reports that we have here before us today that were delivered here 

since June of last year, this is kind of a blanket question on all of 

them. Has the Corps encountered any significant opposition to any 

of these reports? And, if so, can you generalize—generally characterize the opposition? 

General PEABODY. I am not aware of any opposition to any one 

of those studies. In general, there are always concerns that reveal 

themselves during the study process, especially during the public 

comment period. That is why we go through the NEPA process. 

And we work very hard to properly address concerns through the 

public comment period. But I am not aware of any specific, significant opposition to any of those reports. 

Mr. GIBBS. My followup question, now that you mentioned public 

comment period, you know, how do you respond—it doesn’t necessarily have to be a NEPA issue, but I mean just a project that 

is being laid out there, and let’s say there is certain entities that 

aren’t happy with the proposal that is being laid out, and maybe 

there is an alternative plan. How do you—how does the Corps react 

to those alternative ideas that might be thrown out, and study 

that, and how do you relate back to the comments? 

General PEABODY. Sir, I would say in two general ways. The first 

is we work very hard to balance all of the expressed concerns in 

a proper way, and the actual recommended alternative in the feasibility study that makes it through the Chief’s Report. And the second way is we document those concerns, we address them specifically. We address how we have resolved them. Or, if they are not 

resolved, how we have addressed them in the final report. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. And I guess to follow through that a little bit, 

independent external peer reviews basically agreeing with the data 

the Corps is using, you know, what is the status with that, with 

the independent reviews, when they look at the processes and—— 

General PEABODY. Yes, sir. Since the passage of WRDA 2007 we 

have executed approximately 75 independent external peer reviews, for a total cost in excess of $12 million. 

In general, we have not found any comments that have made significant changes to our reporting. I would say, however, what this 

has revealed is that often times we don’t document our reports 

with sufficient clarity, so that generates a lot of the comments that 

we get in the independent external peer reviews. Basically, we 

need to train our engineers to be better masters of the English language, and write in clearer fashion, so that our conclusions are understandable to all audiences. 

Mr. GIBBS. I see, because it raises more questions that didn’t 

have all the information. 

General PEABODY. Yes—— 

9 

Mr. GIBBS. That is kind of typical. We get that, too, a lot. 

Another thing I would talk about, ask a question, you know, this 

economic downturn we have gone through, do you feel that the 

projects that provide economic benefits, should they receive a higher priority than projects that might be more like environmental 

restoration projects that maybe don’t provide an economic return? 

I mean how do you balance that? 

General PEABODY. Sir, that is kind of a judgment call. But I got 

to tell you, growing up on Lake Erie as a kid in the sixties, and 

going to Nickel Beach where it was littered with dying fishes, I am 

very personally sensitive to making sure that we properly care for 

the environment. 

In my view, there is no need for the two issues to be in competition. Clearly, there is always a competition for limited resources, 

but both purposes are important for the Nation to prosecute, and 

need to be fully considered. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes. I guess one thing I have said—I am going to 

make this statement, so it is clear how maybe I personally feel— 

obviously, I think the environment is important, and we should do 

what we can. But I am concerned when I see the President’s budget. There is a lot more—like, I don’t know, several times more— 

investment in restoration projects than in infrastructure projects, 

and I am concerned that if we don’t maybe prioritize our—those investments a little bit more, then we won’t get the economic return, 

then we won’t have the dollars to flow through to do the environmental stuff. 

So, we have to find a balance there, and that is a concern that 

I have, that there might be a higher priority set on the things that, 

you know—find a return, but in a different way, not an economic 

return. So I have concerns about that. 

Just quickly in 3x3x3, you know, why not 2x2x2 or 4x4x4? How 

did we end up with 3x3x3? 

General PEABODY. You know, sir, at the end of the day we did 

a lot of introspection on this issue. And Mr. Brown and I were just 

talking about this yesterday. When it came down to it, it was our 

judgment that WRDA 2007 put those bounds out there between 2 

and 4 years, $2 million and $4 million. But our judgment and our 

experience concluded that most—not all, but most—feasibility studies, especially ones that are well bounded geographically and by 

purpose, could be executed in those parameters. And so far our experience is playing that out. 

Now, we do have a goal of delivering some in 18 months. Not 

many make that. I think Cedar Rapids is one that was close to that 

amount of time. But most of them are much closer to the 3 years 

so far. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. I will follow up then with another round of questions. But I will yield to Ms. Edwards, sitting in for Mr. Bishop. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And 

also to Chairman Shuster and our ranking members, Rahall and 

Bishop, because I think this is a really important and timely hearing. And I appreciate, General Peabody, you and your staff being 

here this morning. 

Also wanted just to take a moment to acknowledge—I don’t have 

a daughter, but I get a daughter for the day—Alia Matthews, who 

10 

is with Girl Scouts Troop in Upper Marlboro 3255, and I am just 

glad that she is here, so she can see a Congress that is actually 

working and doing something today. 

You know, I think Senator Cardin, Ben Cardin, and I have the 

honor and responsibility of representing Maryland in Congress on 

the authorizing committees and also on the WRRDA conference 

committee. And so I think I share the view of our chairman and 

our ranking members that we will get WRRDA completed in short 

order. And this bill takes us a really long way into doing that. 

For our State—and we have the belief in our State that when 

you invest in restoring environmental infrastructure, that that actually is infrastructure investment and requires, you know, a lot of 

job creation in order to do that. We happen to have the fourth longest coast line in the continental United States. The Chesapeake 

Bay, several of its tributaries—through the Fourth Congressional 

District I think I have three or four tributaries that flow through 

the Fourth Congressional District in Maryland—these resources 

provide billions of dollars in economic activity for our State. And 

maintaining and modernizing Maryland’s waterways and its ports, 

including the Port of Baltimore, is essential for supporting and expanding our Nation’s—our State’s industries and economy. 

I want to ask you, because we have been engaged, obviously, 

with the modernization of the Port of Baltimore, its public terminals, its foreign and domestic cargo, which total about 9.6 million 

tons in 2013, and was equal to the prior year. The port’s public and 

private terminals handled 652,000 cars in 2012, the most among 

all U.S. ports. And in 2013, automobiles and light truck tonnage increased 11.4 percent at the terminals at the Port of Baltimore. 

With this kind of volume, the Port of Baltimore plays a vital role 

in Maryland’s economy, and also has a significant impact on the 

economy of the entire east coast, and even into the Midwest, providing for good-paying jobs for Maryland’s families. And it really is 

one of the most important economic engines in the State. 

On February 26th the Corps transmitted to Congress the PostAuthorization Change Report for Poplar Island in Maryland. Poplar Island is located on the Chesapeake Bay in Talbot County, and 

is currently being rebuilt by the Corps using dredge material from 

the Chesapeake Bay’s approach channels to Baltimore. And so, I 

wonder, General Peabody, if you could comment for us about that 

project, and how it is coming along. 

And then, if you would, also talk about the 3x3x3 process. Since 

you have been engaged in January 2011, you have really significantly reduced the number of projects that are outstanding in the 

process. And I think that that speaks well to what will happen in 

the future. 

And then, lastly, General Peabody, in this year’s authorization— 

I mean this year’s administration fiscal year 2015 request for the 

Army Corps, it is about $80 million. And that is $45 million less 

than fiscal year 2014. Can you tell us how you would move ahead 

under the Civil Works Transformation Program, and prioritize 

where and how $80 million in investigation dollars would be allocated? 

I know that is a lot, but take it away in a minute-and-a-half. 

11 

General PEABODY. Yes, ma’am. So Poplar Island, as you discussed, is one of the Post-Authorization Change Reports that we 

have submitted for recommended cost increase. This is really important for the Port of Baltimore, which, as you pointed out, is one 

of our Nation’s premier cargo handling ports because the dredge 

material in the port needs to be placed in upland locations, and 

this provides not just a place to do that, but also beneficial use for 

some critical habitat. I forget the exact acreage, but it is a significantly large amount. It also provides an opportunity to reliably 

place that dredge material for a very long period of time, multiple 

decades. 

With regard to the 3x3x3 process, I think one of the challenges 

is we just started this formally 2 years ago. We started budgeting 

for it 2 years ago, which means the 2014 workplan is the first year 

we are actually starting to fund studies that are 3x3x3 compliant. 

So we really need to get through the execution of the 3 years of 

those studies and, in my judgment, at least one and perhaps 2 

years beyond that, to cultivate enough lessons that we can see the 

trends, we can distinguish what is working and what is not working, and draw conclusions with great clarity. 

I will say, however, as I tried to mention in my oral statement, 

that so far the early indicators are, because of the number of reports that we have executed, that it is working and it is working 

well. 

With regard to your question about the budget amount, the reality is the Corps is a very small part of the much larger Federal 

Government that has an obligation to live within fiscal constraints 

that we are all very well aware of in these times. And the judgment of how much money we should get is up to policymakers such 

as yourselves. And what we will do is prioritize the most important 

studies and all of our training programs to fit within whatever 

amounts that we are allocated and appropriated. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much for your indulgence, Mr. 

Chairman. And, General Peabody, very politic answer there. Thank 

you. 

General PEABODY. Thank you, ma’am. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Shuster? 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to stay with 

the 3x3x3 for a minute. And you have already started doing it from 

the district to the division to the headquarters consolidating those. 

Have you been able to determine how much time savings you have 

been able to squeeze out of the system when you implement that? 

Has it been in process long enough to be able to—— 

General PEABODY. I don’t think we have got enough data, or have 

analyzed it to the point that I can tell you with any kind of precision, sir. However, as I indicated earlier, the fact that we produce 

21⁄2 times the reports in a little less than 3 years versus the 3 

years prior to starting this is a good indicator that we are executing faster. 

You hit on the vertical integration. To me this is perhaps the 

most important aspect, and it is more complex than just vertical integration, because it is horizontal integration, with all the stakeholders and resource agencies, as well. But what this allows is the 

people with the experience and the understanding of the policy pitVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:12 Dec 15, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\WR\4-29-1~1\87700.TXT JEAN
12 

falls and challenges that most projects face to engage much earlier 

with the people in the field who understand the specifics of what 

the sponsor needs and the specifics of the project, and then hone 

down and focus on the alternatives that are most likely to both 

achieve what the sponsor desires, and also be policy-compliant. 

So we really crush out a lot of blind alleys by doing that approach. 

Mr. SHUSTER. That is good. And I think that is the most important part, too. I agree with you. The 3x3x3 concept is making all 

three of those operations work together to get it—to move forward. 

Approximately 20 percent of the 48 Chief’s Reports that were authorized in the 2007 WRDA received Federal funds for construction. Of those not funded, if Congress were to authorize a publicprivate partnership which we have put a pilot in, how many of 

those Chief’s Reports of those 48 would you say would have moved 

forward by now, if the public-private partnership were expanded? 

General PEABODY. I guess we would have to know the specifics 

of the authorizing legislation. Each project would have to attract 

private investment, based on its own merits. And frankly, sir, I 

haven’t done an analysis where I could tell you how that works. I 

would say that the deepening in Miami Harbor, which is being 

done with advance funds, is an indicator that there are projects out 

there that there is great interest in funding, with or without Federal investments. 

And so, there is no doubt in my mind that some of them would 

go forward. It would just depend on the specifics of the legislation 

and the specifics of the attractiveness—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. Right. 

General PEABODY [continuing]. Of the various projects to investors. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, you mentioned the Port of Miami. What 

about the Port of Savannah, too? I understand that Georgia has 

lined up their money, they are ready to move, and there has been 

some concern by the Governor of Georgia that the Corps is not on 

the same page. But I believe this legislation will allow Savannah 

to move forward with their own money. 

General PEABODY. Sir, I think you are aware that Savannah is 

one of those legacy projects that we spent years on and I think in 

excess of $40 million studying. The biggest challenge with Savannah was that it is basically co-located with a national park and 

some pretty sensitive environmental habitat. And so, working 

through that was part of the challenge. 

The Corps fully shares all the stakeholders’ desires to get that 

project underway. But right now we are waiting on an authorization from the Congress, which the administration has deemed is 

needed before we can move forward. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Which—we hope to have to you in short order. 

General PEABODY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Because, again, I know that to the folks in Georgia, the Governor, it has been an extremely important project. And 

I think they have $230 million or $240 million ready to go, as soon 

as we get that authorization out there. 

So, I thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mrs. Napolitano? 

13 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I associate 

myself with the remarks of my predecessors about the Army Corps’ 

work. We are very happy with our group in the L.A. area. 

The Los Angeles River Chief’s Report is currently being worked 

on and will be finalized this year, of course. And we have advocated—several of my colleagues—on the Los Angeles River inclusion in the WRRDA. But I realize this may not happen. I would 

like to submit a letter, Mr. Chairman, for the record from the Los 

Angeles mayor, Eric Garcetti, a city of over 4 million people, urging 

the committee to support the locally preferred Los Angeles River. 

Mr. GIBBS. So ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

14 


Insert offset folio 6 here 87700.006
15 


Insert offset folio 7 here 87700.007
16 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. The locally preferred alternative 

provides the most robust ecosystem restoration outcomes, while 

also providing four times more jobs than the other alternatives, 

and will thereby be appropriately—most appropriately redress historic environmental injustices that have resulted from the river’s 

channelization, providing new public access to natural open spaces, 

improving public health, stimulating regional and local economies, 

and enhancing the life of quality not only for the city of Los Angeles, for the whole county and the whole area of Los Angeles. 

This locally preferred alternative includes both significant restoration of the Los Angeles River confluence with the Verdugo 

Wash near the city’s border with the city of Glendale and the only 

substantial western bank connection providing a profound 

hydrological link between the Los Angeles Historic Park and the 

river. 

I believe the L.A. River’s Chief’s Report is being reviewed, and 

I would hope that—I would like to receive, and this committee may 

receive an update of where it stands. 

General PEABODY. Yes, ma’am. Thank you very much for the 

question, Congresswoman. I was actually out there in January and 

spent some considerable amount of time with the Los Angeles District and the South Pacific Division, reviewing the project. We did 

an extensive overflight. I have got a great appreciation for its importance. 

The current status, as of just a couple of weeks ago, the mayor 

of Los Angeles, Mayor Garcetti, provided the district with a letter 

of support, which is great. But he put some language in that support letter that is unusual. And so we have to work through that. 

For example, he asked for a cost share provision that is outside 

of normal statutory provisions. So we are in consultations right 

now, analyzing that, ma’am. And we are determining how we can 

continue to work with the mayor and the local sponsors to move 

forward. Once we have resolved that, then soon thereafter we will 

be able to move to a Civil Works Review Board, which is the last 

major check point en route to a Chief’s Report. Generally, after a 

Civil Works Review Board is executed and votes to proceed forward 

with State and agency review, it takes usually about 3 months 

from that point to the time that General Bostick would sign the 

Chief’s Report. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Would you elaborate a little bit more on the 

issue with the cost share? Because I am not aware of it. 

General PEABODY. I don’t recall the specific language, but the 

mayor suggested that the cost share for alternative 20 would be 

higher than what the Federal Government would normally cost 

share. Normally, the way it works is we cost share in accordance 

with the statutory provision associated with that particular project. 

In this case, as I recall, it is 65–35, which is the case for most 

projects. 

Because the Federal Government recommendation is alternative 

13 and the mayor wants to use alternative 20, which is the alternative you discussed, normally we would require that the cost 

share for the amount above the Federal recommendation would be 

100 percent handled by the local sponsor. That is not what the 

mayor has suggested. So we are going through internal process to 

17 

analyze that and understand what we might be able to address the 

mayor’s recommendation. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, General. And anything we can do 

to help, I would really appreciate being made aware of it, so we can 

work with you from this angle. 

General PEABODY. Yes, ma’am. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And I certainly am very pleased about the 

way the Chief’s Reports are coming forth, and letting us know what 

they are so that we are aware and can approve of moving them forward. 

So, with that, I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman, 

and thank you so very much. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. Mr. Farenthold? 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much, General. Thank you for 

being here. Thank you for all you do for the infrastructure in this 

country and otherwise. 

One of the consistent complaints that I hear from businesses, 

and even governmental entities around the country is, ‘‘Give us 

some rules, and we will do our best to comply with them. Don’t 

change the rules in the middle of the game.’’ I am cochairman of 

the Texas Maritime Conference, used to represent Brownsville, 

Texas, until redistricting, and still actively involved in all of the 

ports along the Texas coast. And it was kind of disturbing to hear 

from Brownsville that it looks like the Corps is moving the goal 

posts on Brownsville. Let me give you a little bit of background. 

The Port of Brownsville is working on the Brazos Island Harbor 

project, which is basically a widening and deepening project that 

has been going on now for about 7 years. I am a frequent visitor 

to the Port of Brownsville, back when I represented it, and after. 

It is, you know, one of the poorest and most underdeveloped areas 

of our country near the U.S.-Mexico border. And this deepening 

project will be hugely beneficial. It looks like the cost-benefit ratio 

on that exceeds six to one. 

And it is my understanding that there is a very clean draft 

Chief’s Report, and it is tracking to be final in September of 2014. 

But we recently found out that the Corps unilaterally decided to 

not go by the management protocol agreement between the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Corps agreement from December 29th of 2006, and the Corps is changing how they are interpreting that, and it looks like they are getting a potential biological 

problem. 

The Port tells me they have worked hard with the Corps on these 

and other environmental issues over the past—specifically, the 

green turtle is an example where Brownsville has worked very 

well, together with the Corps, for many years. I guess my question 

is how—why are we shifting the rules now? Are you aware of that, 

and is there a reason we are doing that? 

General PEABODY. Congressman, the first I became aware of this 

issue was this morning. So, unfortunately, I am not familiar with 

the details. However, I am going to follow up immediately following 

this hearing and check with the Southwestern Division. I am familiar with the project. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Right. 

18 

General PEABODY. In fact, we had hoped to have a Civil Works 

Review Board before now. A few months ago there were some 

delays. In fact, I asked General Kula, the Southwestern Division 

commander, to do a detailed root-cause analysis of the reasons for 

the delays from the project. He has done that, and we are using 

that information to contribute to the current analysis that we are 

doing to potentially make adjustments to some of the specifics on 

how we execute planning modernization. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And I understand—— 

General PEABODY. But I am going to have to follow up with you, 

sir. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And I would appreciate that. I guess there is 

a delicate balance to strike. You know, if we want to streamline 

things and do our job better, faster, and more efficiently, we sometimes have got to change the way we do things. But when we 

change the way we do things, if we move the goal posts as part of 

that, that runs up the cost for everything. 

And, obviously, you know, there is a cost associated with going 

through all of the process, both for the Corps and for whatever entity, being a public entity, or, you know, whomever, it is trying to 

deal with the Corps. And, obviously, costs go up as the delays go 

down. I think if you look at what this committee has been trying 

to do, whether in MAP–21 with highways, or what we passed out 

in WRRDA, we want to protect the environment, we want to do 

things safely, we want to get the job done, but we don’t want to 

have unnecessary delay. There is cost involved in that. And so, you 

know, my request to you is you keep that in mind in all that you 

are doing, not just the Port of Brownsville. 

And my final question would be what can we do to help you get 

your job done in a better and faster manner. 

General PEABODY. That is a great question, sir. You know, there 

has been great collaboration and engagement with the Congress on 

what we are doing. I think the most important thing is to work 

closely with us to understand what it is that we are doing, to understand what the successes are, and understand why sometimes 

things don’t go as people would like. 

We do need a little tactical patience. The effort we are undergoing is going to take months and years to determine how well 

things are working. And so, just continued engagement would be 

the most important thing, Congressman. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Again, thank you. I see my time has expired, 

so I will yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Ms. Frankel. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And I also want 

to welcome Daishia Fare, eighth grader from Northern Middle in 

Maryland. Thank you for being here as part of Girls Inc. Welcome. 

So—and welcome to our guests here today. Thank you for your 

service, appreciate it. I want to say what I am going to say—tell 

you with the utmost respect, but I am coming from representing a 

delegation of Members from south Florida who, basically, are pulling their hair out right now, in a dither. I am saying that respectfully. 

And the reason for that—and I don’t want to necessarily fault 

the Army Corps, because, you know, you look in the mirror, and 

19 

we are the enemy, the Congress—because I believe we have given 

much too much authority to the executive in deciding which 

projects are actually going to end up getting authorized, since our 

bill, which is bipartisan, went in the direction of authorizing 

Chief’s Reports. And for me, I think that gives much too much 

power to the executive, and really removes a lot of transparency 

that I think the public expects and deserves. 

And I want to focus on three projects in south Florida, just by 

example. The first is Port of Palm Beach in Palm Beach County. 

The second is Port Everglades in Fort Lauderdale. And then we 

have the Central Everglades Planning Project in Florida. 

Disappointed would be the minimal word I could use to express 

the fact that the Chief’s Reports for Port Everglades and for CEPP 

will not be completed in time for this next authorization. We have 

waited 18 years for a Chief’s Report in Port Everglades. And I am 

going to—I will defer to Mr. Webster, and he will tell you the history of CEPP, because he worked on it when he was speaker of the 

house in Florida. 

And what I want to say is not only are these projects very, very 

important for the economy of Florida—and, of course, CEPP is very 

important not only for the economy, but for our environment and 

our water resources—but both these projects have overwhelming 

popular support in the community, and commitments for funding 

from the community. 

Port of Palm Beach, which I have—it is a split in our community, 

in terms of support. There are some who are very much in support 

of it, the dredging, an expansion. There is some very vocal opposition. And there is, from what I know, no commitment for any 

matching funds from the community. And yet, of these three 

projects, the only project that we have a Chief’s Report for is the 

one at Port of Palm Beach, which there is no commitment for funding from the community. 

So, my question really is, do you take into account the—either 

the community support of a project? Do you take into account the 

ability of a community to come forward and pay its share? And 

how—does it matter to you at all what Members of Congress communicate in regards to their—what their stakeholders are thinking? 

General PEABODY. Ma’am, thank you for those questions. I am 

familiar with all of these projects. I am more familiar with CEPP 

and Port Everglades than Palm Beach. 

Let me take your last question first, Congresswoman. Absolutely. 

We take very seriously the concerns of Congress. You are the elected constituents’ representatives. You are more closely tied to them 

than we are. And so we do listen very closely. 

I think there are some misunderstandings associated with some 

of the concerns that have been expressed. Let me work my way 

through the two that I am most familiar with. I am not as familiar 

with Palm Beach. 

But to answer your other question about community support, 

there are two things that are required before I go to the specifics. 

The first is, before we can proceed with a feasibility study, we need 

a letter of support and identified viable, non-Federal sponsor. 

Sometimes that non-Federal sponsor’s ability to support a project 

20 

changes over the course of a study. But for the most times, that 

does not happen. 

The second thing we need to proceed forward at later stages in 

the study, is a Federal cost-sharing agreement with the sponsor. 

And we would not get to a Civil Works Review Board if we didn’t 

go through that process. 

With regard to the Central Everglades, we are very close. I committed at the Civil Works Review Board that was held last week 

that we would have a continuation of our Civil Works Review 

Board not later than the end of June. So we are less than 2 months 

away from continuing the Civil Works Review Board. Once we continue the Civil Works Review Board, we will then move forward to 

State and agency review. Within about 3 months we can expect a 

Chief’s Report. 

So, the project briefing done by the district was phenomenal, explained very clearly an extremely complicated project, one of the 

most complicated projects that we have seen. But the truth is that 

there were some documentation issues that had to be addressed. 

And we really held the Civil Works Review Board before our review 

team had been able to complete their review. 

With regard to Port Everglades, one of the frustrations that people sense, as was discussed earlier, is the sense that we were moving goal posts. What generally happens when that perception is out 

there is the assumptions we were planning on turn out not to be 

valid. And so, when those assumptions change and are no longer 

valid, we have to go back and address the new reality that confronts us. That does result in additional time, often results in additional costs, often results in changed requirements in order to get 

the study forward. And, essentially, that is what happened with 

the Port Everglades project. 

Ms. FRANKEL. Well, I thank you for your answer, not that I am 

happy with it. But, Mr. Chair, I will yield my time. I hope Mr. 

Webster will follow up on some of that. 

Mr. GIBBS. OK. Thank you, General Peabody, for that long explanation. 

I would like to recognize the chairman emeritus, Mr. Young from 

Alaska. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, I am—really 

want to ask a couple of short questions on the Brownsville Harbor. 

You just told the gentleman, Mr. Farenthold, that you didn’t really 

know anything about it, and that disturbs me, because this is a 

project that came under my chairmanship. And I believe it has 

gone through more firsts than anything else. 

You changed it from a legacy project to a SMART project to I 

don’t know how many different projects. You have had different 

managers, district managers—three, four of them, I believe—and 

this is a legacy project. Now, what is the problem, and why is it 

happening, and why are we being delayed, and why isn’t it finished? 

General PEABODY. Sir, I apologize, Chairman. I expect the Civil 

Works Review Board for that will be executed this summer. I am 

very familiar with the project. What I was not familiar with, to 

clarify, was the specific issue related to an endangered species. The 

21 

first time I heard that was this morning. So I just need time to follow up on it with the local—— 

Mr. YOUNG. OK. I am going to make a suggestion. First, you 

know, I am very—a big supporter of the Corps. And I am a little 

frustrated—and, frankly, a little pissed off—and I will say that out 

loud again, pissed off—because now you are being dictated by the 

Fish and Wildlife, Endangered Species, et cetera, et cetera, and 

nothing gets done. And those—I have seen these projects all across 

the United States, and it is inappropriate. 

I want you to take a firm stand against an agency. And I just 

had it happen up in Alaska. The EPA was going to veto a project 

prior to you applying for a permit. There has to be a little bit of 

more—say, ‘‘This is our job.’’ And you show me where the law is 

wrong, and we will try to change the law. But this project started 

when I was chairman. Brownsville. It is a depressed area. It is a 

good project. We need that when the Panamax is coming in. And 

now we find out there is now a new system. And why that has occurred, I don’t know. Where did it come from? Who instigated it? 

Why was it a legacy project? And now we have to go through, you 

know, numerous other firsts. Don’t do that. 

So, you are going to get back to me and this committee, and we 

are going to find out why we can’t expedite that process, get this 

done this summer. I don’t want to come back here next year and 

chew on you again if you are still in that position, because it is inappropriate. 

General PEABODY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. YOUNG. You have a responsibility. 

General PEABODY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. YOUNG. Would you like to respond, please? 

General PEABODY. Sir, as I said earlier, I am absolutely committed to looking into this as quickly as possible, and getting back 

to you and the committee as quickly as possible on what is going 

on. And I still expect that we will be able to move forward with 

a Civil Works Review Board later this summer. 

Mr. YOUNG. OK. And don’t—like I say, keep us informed. Keep 

this committee informed about where the process—if there is a 

stalemate, if someone else is getting their finger in the pie, because 

I want this project done. 

General PEABODY. I will keep you up to speed. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. YOUNG. Be glad to yield. 

Mr. SHUSTER. While we are talking about Brownsville again, I 

have been to Brownsville, I know what is going on down there. 

There is billions of dollars’ worth of investment that this thing 

needs to move forward. Again, everybody in this room wants to 

make sure the environment is sound. But to slow it up again is the 

wrong thing to do. 

So, I echo Chairman Young’s comments. We want to find out 

what is going on. Keep us informed. But this project really needs 

to move, because it is billions of private dollars that is going to go 

into that port, and it is going to help an area of the country that 

has seen some tough economic times. So, again, we are going to be 

on this one. So I appreciate that. 

22 

And the other thing is—the gentlelady from Florida, if she asked, 

I missed it. The Port of Everglades, which I have said to her, you 

know, we are going to go through this process, and—when do you 

expect the Port of Everglades to have a Chief’s Report, roughly? 

General PEABODY. Go ahead. Yes, Tab, go ahead. 

Mr. BROWN. Sir, the bottom line is right now we are pretty close 

in terms of finalizing the issue with the biological opinion. After 

that we believe we can finalize the recommended plan and then 

move forward and finalize the report. 

Mr. SHUSTER. So we are looking at months, not years? 

Mr. BROWN. We are talking about months. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Yes, OK. Because, again, as I have committed to 

the gentlelady from Florida, when we get done with this bill we are 

going to start working on another bill, because I know how important it is to Florida. And I can assure you Don Young will be looking over your shoulder and Brownsville should be looking over your 

shoulder, and the Port of Everglades—or should be looking over 

mine, too, so I want to make sure we move that, keep that moving 

forward. 

So, again, thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mrs. Kirkpatrick? 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, General Peabody, there is a 

project in my district that is unlike any other in the country because it seeks to protect a community of people whom, not so long 

ago, Congress moved into a 100-year flood plain. The Federal Government has relocated over 100 Navajo and Hopi families from 

tribal lands to Winslow, Arizona, pursuant to laws Congress passed 

in 1974 and 1980. Not only do we have a statutory responsibility 

for these families, but Congress and the Army Corps of Engineers 

share a trust obligation for the safety of American Indians. 

The Little Colorado River at Winslow Levee feasibility study will 

have its Chief’s Report by next August. And I just want to thank 

you, General, for committing to do that. And I thank the chairman 

for his commitment to begin writing the next WRDA bill as soon 

as we finish passing this one. And I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Webster? 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to follow up 

with the Central Everglades Planning Project. When we first started, which was—Ms. Frankel and I were both in the Florida legislature, that was—we passed a Everglades Restoration Act many 

years ago. And we were used to having a 50–50 commitment with 

the Federal Government, but us funding most of it. And we didn’t 

see money for many years after that. We spent hundreds of millions of dollars. But in every case we needed approval. Even though 

the Federal dollars weren’t coming, we still needed to have approval. 

Is there a specific date that the board will—the Civil Works Review Board will reconvene? I mean does—so they can move forward 

with this? 

General PEABODY. Congressman, we have not scheduled a specific date. I will receive an in-progress review report from our policy reviewers this Friday. And within the next 10 days to 2 weeks 

after that, I expect to have a clear understanding if any issues reVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:12 Dec 15, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\WR\4-29-1~1\87700.TXT JEAN
23 

main to be resolved. If there are no issues remaining to be resolved, then I expect we can continue the Civil Works Review 

Board at that time. 

So, the best case scenario, I think, is the end of next month, the 

end of May. The worst case scenario is the end of June. And so I 

am absolutely committed that not later than the end of June we 

will continue the Civil Works Review Board. When we convene 

that, I will only do it because I am confident that we will be able 

to get to a positive vote, and then submit the report for State and 

agency review. 

Mr. WEBSTER. May sounds really, really good. A lot better than 

June. 

Also, can I ask a question about the Jacksonville Harbor? The 

Chief’s Report was signed earlier this month, and now it has been 

submitted to the Secretary of the Army. Is there a project sort of 

update on what is going to happen with that Chief’s Report and a 

timeline? 

General PEABODY. Sir, the Chief’s Report, once it is signed, goes 

two place. First, it comes to the Congress. But then it goes to Secretary Darcy’s office for administration review between her office 

and the Office of Management and Budget. And, you know, they do 

their review, and once it gets through administration review, then 

the administration would submit it back to Congress with any 

independent recommendations that the administration may have, 

separate from the Chief. By statute, the Chief is required to give 

his recommendation, and then the Secretary has an equal obligation to make her own independent judgment. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Is there any kind of timeline for that? 

General PEABODY. Sir, I am not familiar with where that particular project is in administration review right now. 

Mr. WEBSTER. OK. Yield back. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Rice? 

Mr. RICE. General, I have heard reports—I obviously wasn’t here 

when we started working on the Port Everglades project, but it 

started in the 1990s. Is that correct? 

General PEABODY. Tab, do you have the timeline? 

Mr. RICE. The Florida port system told me they have been working on trying to get this port dredged since 1998. Is that right? 

Mr. BROWN. It has been about 17 years, sir. 

Mr. RICE. You work for the Army, and you do a great job, and 

I appreciate your service. But—and it is very appropriate, because 

I think we are in a war. Not that this is the Armed Services Committee; we are in a economic war with the rest of the world. And 

who we are fighting for is that young lady right over there, that 

Girl Scout. And we are fighting for—you got kids? 

General PEABODY. I have a 4-year-old. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RICE. Yes. We are fighting for them. We are fighting for 

American competitiveness, economic competitiveness. And I think, 

on a fair playing field, nobody can beat us. But I think we are defeating ourselves. We are strangling ourselves with all this regulation and delay. The fact that it would—we could ever dream of taking 16 years to approve dredging a port—had that port been 

dredged before? 

General PEABODY. Oh, yes, sir. 

24 

Mr. RICE. Yes. That it would take that long to make decisions 

about feasibility and environmental conditions on a port that has 

been dredged before that is not going to require any Federal 

money, I mean, the system is so very, very clearly broken. 

And, I mean, we can sit here and name a whole lot of reasons 

why this has happened, and—but it should never happen again. 

How long have we been working on Brownsville? 

General PEABODY. I don’t have the timeline on that, sir. 

But, sir, I would like to say that your point is exactly right. I 

mean this is exactly why we instituted planning modernization, so 

we could come to clear decisions on relatively predictable timelines, 

so that all the benefits that can accrue from these water resource 

projects can start. Because we can’t get to construction until we do 

our—— 

Mr. RICE. I hear you, and I appreciate the concept of 3x3x3. I 

think 3x3x3 is too long, if we are going to compete. There are 

groups of people around the world in every country, every organized country except for us, that sit around and try to figure out 

how they can make their countries more competitive, how they can 

cut regulation, streamline costs, and—or reduce cost and make 

things more efficient. 

And we have got to change our attitude. We have got to recognize that we are in an economic battle here, or we are going to continue to see jobs—and when that young lady right there graduates 

from college does, and my sons just did, there is not going to be 

anything for them. There is going to have to be a dramatic change 

in our attitude if we are going to compete in the world. 

General PEABODY. Sir, I strongly concur with your concerns 

about the economic competitiveness of this Nation. I am doing everything I can to move things forward in the Corps of Engineers 

Civil Works Program to get to decisions so that we can remain 

competitive. 

Mr. RICE. I mean, very honestly, particularly on a port that has 

been dredged, you know multiple times—let’s talk about Charleston for a minute, not that Charleston has taken a tremendous 

amount of time, Charleston is one that I am roughly familiar with. 

I don’t know how many times Charleston has been dredged, but it 

has been dredged pretty darn continuously for decades. Charleston 

is an incredibly economically important port. I can’t imagine a scenario, just common sense, that you would run your study on 

Charleston on what it takes to get it to the Panamax depth, and 

that you would conclude that that port doesn’t need to be dredged. 

I cannot imagine that scenario. And why it would take years to 

make that decision is just—it defies common sense, in my opinion. 

And it makes us less competitive. 

But we need to create a future for our kids. We need to figure 

out a way to get past this. So thank you for—two things I would 

like to see from you. One, I want your suggestions, because I don’t 

know. I want your suggestions on what we can do to make this dramatically different, particularly for ports that have been dredged 

over and over again, and are so clearly important to our national 

economic security. 

And, two, I want to know how much money we are spending 

doing these studies—for example, Port Everglades—versus what it 

25 

actually costs to dredge. I want to know what the percentage is— 

difference—because I think we are spending an incredibly inordinate amount of money and time. And I would like to take for that 

to take into account opportunity costs that we have lost. 

General PEABODY. In terms of the amount of money, let’s talk 

about Savannah Harbor, which I am more familiar with. First of 

all, Charleston Harbor is on track for a Chief’s Report next year, 

in 2015. And I just got an update on that last week, and it is where 

it needs to be, barring any unforseen circumstances, which sometimes do arise. 

But the Savannah Harbor expansion project, for example, took at least 15 years, over $40 million, to study that project. I happened 

to sit on that Civil Works Review Board in a previous capacity. 

General Semonite, then the division commander, had a very graphic visual that showed the 27-inches-across binders documenting all 

the issues associated with the project. 

But, sir, we have to comply with all of the statutes, policies, and 

regulations that we are obligated to follow. And, in this particular 

case, because of the confluence of the harbor with some sensitive 

environmental habitat, it really made the project much more complex to plow through. 

Mr. RICE. Well, what I would like to know is how we can streamline that 27 inches of binder, or the statutes that you have to comply with. What I want to know is what we have got to get rid of 

or simplify to get—— 

General PEABODY. Sir, within our current legal policy and regulatory constraints, we believe planning modernization does exactly 

that. And all the early indicators are that it is working, and it will 

deliver what we think it is supposed to. 

Mr. RICE. I hear you, and I appreciate that, and I think you are 

doing a great job, I really do. And I know you understand my concern. But I don’t want you to start the sentence, ‘‘Within our current.’’ I want to talk about what we can change within that to redefine those boundaries, and make this easier. 

General PEABODY. Sir, that is for people who don’t wear a uniform to—— 

Mr. RICE. I understand. But we are not—we need your insight, 

because you all work with it every day. We need your insight on 

what we need to change. 

General PEABODY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. RICE. Thank you. 

General PEABODY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Jolly? 

Mr. JOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, I just want to 

echo the concerns of my colleagues from Florida on both sides of 

the aisle about Central Everglades, express my urgency and disappointment on that, as well. The President has suggested it is a 

priority of his on—through his We Can’t Wait Initiative. So I appreciate that you have demonstrated an understanding as to the 

urgency of it. 

The only thing I would ask, as a courtesy, you mentioned you are 

receiving a progress report this Friday, and you think within 2 

weeks you would be able to schedule a review board. Could your 

office commit to updating at least those of us from Florida on this 

26 

subcommittee? That puts it around May 15th, I would estimate, 2 

weeks out from this Friday. Could you commit to updating us by 

then on a date that you could convene that board? 

General PEABODY. Sir, we would absolutely keep you and the 

other Members of the delegation updated on the progress of moving 

forward. 

Mr. JOLLY. Great. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. 

General PEABODY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GIBBS. Ms. Frankel, did you have a followup question you 

want—— 

Ms. FRANKEL. I am fine. 

Mr. GIBBS. You are fine? OK. I just got a couple things. 

First of all, General, I want to thank you for all your work and 

attentiveness on the Cleveland Harbor dredging project for this 

year, getting that done, and your commitment to work with the 

EPA to find a solution in a future—starting next year, really, and 

how important that is to the economy of northeastern, northern 

Ohio, and at least 2,000 jobs in the Cleveland area at risk. And so 

it is good to know that the dredging is going to proceed on schedule 

this coming May, this month coming up. 

I asked you a question, and I wasn’t going to ask you, but I 

thought maybe I will ask you publicly, because I think it is important. We have had hearings on it in the past, you know, the Missouri River issue. We had—one year we had flooding, and the next 

year—I think I got the year right—we had drought. And can you 

just kind of give us an update of what the status is right now, and 

what the Corps is looking at on that whole Missouri River Basin 

issue? 

General PEABODY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Just last 

week we did our annual spring flood assessment. We do this every 

year across the Corps, look at all the basins so that we can make 

sure that we understand the status of snowpack, of ground moisture, of meteorological forecasts, and then anticipate and pre-position assets, if needed, to address the potential for flooding. 

We did have the flood of record in recorded history of the Missouri River in 2011, as you indicated, and then we had a nearrecord drought just the next year. This year we do have a fairly 

significant snowpack in some spot locations. It is a record, or close 

to a record, in the upper reaches of the Missouri River Basin mostly in the Montana area. 

So, we are a little bit concerned about the snowpack, but we 

don’t currently have any meteorological forecast that would cause 

us to believe that we would have this almost unique confluence of 

very heavy snowpack and record rainfalls like we had in 2011. 

The other thing is the reservoirs are still lower than normal in 

the Missouri River Basin. So we have more storage capacity than 

we might normally have to deal with additional runoff from either 

snow or rain. So while we are certainly not out of the woods, we 

won’t know that until well into June. Right now we feel like we are 

in a good position, and we don’t anticipate major flooding. Although, of course, that could always change with the weather. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you. I appreciate that. So we—because the reservoirs are down a little bit. If we do get a large rain event like 

we did in 2011, we got some capacity there yet to prevent flooding. 

27 

And then we also got to—I know the challenge is balancing that, 

in case we don’t get the rainfall. And we won’t know that, of 

course, later—like you said, later—late this spring, early to midsummer. So I appreciate that. 

Mr. Denham made it back in, so we will go—go ahead, Mr. 

Denham. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Major General Peabody, thank you for joining us. This is certainly a good day for a 

lot of us who have been waiting for quite some time to get a number of these Chief’s Reports completed. As you may know, you and 

your colleagues have worked for quite some time on the flood risk 

management project along Orestimba Creek in Stanislaus County. 

It is part of the San Joaquin Basin near Newman. Major General 

Walsh was before this committee last June and I appreciated hearing his comment on the Corps’ continued commitment on the 

project. 

I was also very pleased when the Corps submitted, last September, the final report from the Chief of Engineers, whereby you 

recommend authorization of a plan for flood risk management by 

constructing a levee there at the city of Newman, the northeast perimeter there. The city and the county are both local partners, and 

this project has been in the works for nearly two decades. So we 

are finally excited that this is actually getting done. 

But I did want to ask, given all the reforms, how do you think 

the Corps’ new 3x3x3 would have affected this project? And, additionally, if you can get this project funded by Congress, what is the 

Corps’ estimate on delivery date? And do you anticipate any issues 

in completing construction? 

General PEABODY. Congressman, thank you, sir, for the question. 

I am not familiar with that project, so I would have to look at it 

to be able to answer your question with any precision. 

I will say that I am very confident that our planning modernization approach is working. And the 3x3x3 model works best when 

we have a fairly localized project that has a very direct purpose. 

It doesn’t have a lot of complicating variables and a committed 

sponsor able to fund their cost share provision. Basically, it is a 

well-bounded and well-defined project. 

Now, I will add on one other point that I think is very important, 

in the past we did not bound ourselves. We allowed ourselves to infinitely—almost infinitely—look at all kinds of alternatives, and get 

overzealous about studying the full range of possibilities. 

What we have done with 3x3x3 is discipline ourselves early on 

to scope down the project to the most likely set of alternatives and 

range of approaches that are going to address the issue, and have 

a high possibility of success in addressing the issue. And doing that 

early, upfront, makes the critical difference in being able to cut out 

these years and years and years of study. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. This is certainly from a local perspective, but I would even say my colleagues here in DC—Orestimba 

Creek, which most people would have never heard of, have heard 

a lot about it because it has taken so long. And so we are looking 

forward not only to a new and changed process that will expedite 

a number of these projects, but certainly having this included in 

28 

the Chief’s Reports with the rest of the WRRDA package is something that is going to be very well received at home. So thank you. 

Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Sanford? 

Mr. SANFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, General. 

Nice to see you, sir. 

A quick update from my end along the coast of South Carolina. 

Of all things, in The Post and Courier, which is the main paper 

for—oldest paper in the United States, I believe, and the main 

paper there in Charleston and surrounding areas, had an op-ed— 

excuse me, an editorial, of all things, today. I will read just a portion of it, just to bring you up to speed from our end, and would 

love your thoughts. 

‘‘Six mayors along the Charleston County coast have launched an 

effort to get the silted Intracoastal Waterway fixed. Theirs is a 

commendable emergency measure to restore marine traffic, both 

commercial and recreational, to the key north-south artery. They 

hope to convince Charleston County Council to use accommodations 

tax and transportation sales revenues to dredge the most troubled 

areas—near McClellanville and the Isle of Palms near Breach 

Inlet. Then they hope the State will find a long-term way to keep 

this vital waterway open. But it’s the State’s congressional delegation that needs to put the most muscle into solving the problem. 

Keeping the Intracoastal Waterway operational is the responsibility of the Federal Government, just as it is the Federal Government’s responsibility to keep the interstate highways operational. 

Of the Atlantic States, South Carolina ranks last in Federal funding for waterway dredging. Indeed, it has not happened at all in 

the past years, according to an article from reporter Prentiss Findlay. Our congressmen have made a concerted effort to obtain funding to deepen the Charleston Harbor shipping channel. They 

should also be working to find funding to dredge the waterway.’’ 

Meanwhile, County Councilman Dickie Schweers—who is on my 

call list for today—has pointed out a number of shrimp boats are 

being trapped near McClellanville, they can’t get in or out, and 

barges that run north and south of the Intracoastal Waterway can 

only ply their trade during high tides, in some cases. 

So, I guess my question is a quick update on the Intracoastal 

Waterway, and what is scheduled next, and what might be scheduled next, from a funding standpoint. 

General PEABODY. Thank you for that question, Congressman. 

Sir, I am not familiar with the specific project, but I will dig into 

it. There are three points I would like to make. First of all, it is 

gratifying to me to hear that there are local entities who are interested in contributing funds and ensuring that our waterway system 

works, which I believe is absolutely critical to the economic competitiveness of the Nation. 

The second point I would make, and I think is the larger point, 

is most people do not understand that this Nation is blessed with 

the largest naturally navigable inland waterway system in the 

world, thanks to—primarily, but not exclusively—the Mississippi 

River system, as well as the coastal water system that you are 

talking about. We have more miles of navigable waterway—12,000 

miles—than the entire rest of the world, combined. And so, the 

ability to move goods and people by waterborne transportation, 

29 

which is the most environmentally compliant and the most economically competitive, is the cheapest way to move goods per tonmile. It is one of the reasons why we can sustain our competitiveness, despite our relatively high tax and labor rates. 

The last comment I would make is, sir, I think you are aware 

that, because of the fiscal pressures that we in the Corps face as 

part of the larger Federal Government, notwithstanding the importance of this larger system that I talked about, we have to place 

our limited funds on those projects that give the highest return. 

So, as we go forward, one of the biggest challenges that we face 

in the Corps is we are going to need to make tough decisions about 

what infrastructure to invest in, and what not to invest in. We 

have recon studies in the President’s 2015 budget proposal for Kentucky River and Upper Allegheny to dispose of those. There is a 

lock and dam on the Kentucky River that, believe it or not, went 

into operation during Martin Van Buren’s administration. And 

there is no traffic that goes through there. 

So, I will get back to you on your issue, sir, but I think these 

larger points are important for us to understand and dialogue 

about. 

Mr. SANFORD. I understand the larger points. Appreciate it. And, 

again, that is the proverbial food fight each year of the Congress—— 

General PEABODY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SANFORD [continuing]. And how those funds get distributed. 

But I would just make the point, from a competitive standpoint, 

you know, the port in Charleston has been rated, indeed, one of the 

most competitive points in the entire country. And a feeder system 

feeding out from that port, obviously, would be the Intracoastal 

Waterway running both north and south. And so, from a competitive standpoint, and from a utility standpoint, there is something 

very wrong with barges only being able to operate at high tide, 

which is currently the case, in areas both north and south. 

And so, we would very much appreciate you getting back to me 

on numbers, in terms of where things stand. And there is something wrong—if the statistic is true—it is in the newspaper, therefore it may not be true—but South Carolina being last in Federal 

funding for waterway dredging, given the importance of Charleston. 

General PEABODY. Sir, I look forward to meeting with you to discuss those issues—— 

Mr. SANFORD. Yes, sir. 

General PEABODY [continuing]. And I will get back to you. 

Mr. SANFORD. Thanks so much. 

General PEABODY. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, that concludes our hearing. And, General, I 

want to thank you for coming in. And hopefully we are close to finishing up the WRRDA bill, and look forward—we all look forward 

to working with you as we implement the new policies that will 

come out of there to help streamline the costs. And I would love 

to hear your comment you just made at the end there about our 

inland waterway system and the coastal waterway system, the 

numbers compare globally. That is interesting. 

30 

And you are absolutely right, we have been blessed with a good 

system, and we just need to get it updated, so we can just remain 

competitive and move those exports out. 

So, again, thanks for coming in, and this concludes our hearing 

for today. 

[Whereupon, at 11:26 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

31 


Insert offset folio 8 here 87700.008
32 


Insert offset folio 9 here 87700.009
33 


Insert offset folio 10 here 87700.010
34 


Insert offset folio 11 here 87700.011
35 


Insert offset folio 12 here 87700.012
36 


Insert offset folio 13 here 87700.013
37 


Insert offset folio 14 here 87700.014
38 


Insert offset folio 15 here 87700.015
39 


Insert offset folio 16 here 87700.016
40 


Insert offset folio 17 here 87700.017
41 


Insert offset folio 18 here 87700.018
42 


Insert offset folio 19 here 87700.019
43 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 20 here 87700.020